How Albanese could tweak negative gearing to save money and build more new homes (theconversation.com)

submitted 6 months ago by rainynight65@feddit.de to c/australia@aussie.zone

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Longmactoppedup@aussie.zone 13 points 6 months ago

Could do, but likely won't. The voters punished Labor when shorten mentioned policies that maybe might have started making houses more affordable.

Personally i think CGT discounts should never have been a thing. Negative gearing should only have been for new builds and with a time limit of say 10 years.

Short of a time traveling assassination of John Howard I don't think we can easily unfuck the last few decades of bad policy.

[-] No1@aussie.zone 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Negative gearing will never be removed.

It's nothing to do with the voters.The politicians are the landlords

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/politicians-and-their-property-portfolios-how-many-do-they-own/wb7k9xq1p

[-] Custoslibera@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

We literally just had politicians vote against their own self interest by reducing stage 3 tax cuts.

It’s possible they will do the same for negative gearing.

[-] No1@aussie.zone 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Politicians didn't need the tax cuts.

They already gave themselves a 4% pay rise, their biggest increase in a decade

[-] Suspiciousbrowsing@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago

Aren't their wage increases determined by an independent group/board ?

[-] No1@aussie.zone 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

And the President of that is a former CEO of Australia’s largest commercial property services firm, and former National President of the Property Council of Australia.

C'mon, you know how this works

[-] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago

Ayup. Get them scared enough and self preservation will override the greed

[-] Suspiciousbrowsing@kbin.social 2 points 6 months ago

I don't see how they can't just put a cap on negative gearing, say 40k p/year. That would surely satisfy the "mum and dad" investors that everyone gets up in arms about. Might even be worth setting it for a set age bracket e.g. for 60+ year olds there is no cap. I feel this is probably warranted as that generation was told to invest in housing for their retirement, younger generations now have super